Brandt does not inwardly approve of these new practices and orders of Himmler, but fulfils them by signing letters etc. takes dictations from which he must realize, in broad outline, the misanthropical course of Himmler. He remains silent. That is his guilt which cannot be denied. But it is based, in part, on a centuries old heritage of the Germans, namely the devotion in the face of the "order" of the superior starting from the order of the non commissioned officer, up to that of the general, the king or the emperor -; and this devotion regarded such an order as almost sacrosanct and implied release from any personal responsibility. But much greater guilt lies with the person who devised and issued such orders that with a man like Brandt who passed them on without ever having influenced their origin or having even had the possibility of influencing their origin or execution. The sabotage which Brandt might have been able to carryout would by no means have influenced or even impressed Himmler, Dr. Rascher, Dr. Ding, Professor Hirt, Professor Hagen and others. As a result of the evidence I emphasize the fact that Rudolf Brandt was not one of the cynical brutal National Socialists. The witnesses for the Defense call him an "idealist".
Medizinalrat Felix Kerster, who knew him well, testified that Brandt did not even hate or feel enmity toward the Allies; on the contrary, he always dreamed of an understanding among all peoples on a peaceful basis. A man who committed crimes against humanity - and Rudolf Brandt is indicted as such - is congenitally a misanthrop. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann, and many others were such enemies of any human being who opposed them. An offender against humanity will be able to conceal only for a short while the lowness of his moral corruptness, because at some point even the most wily hypocrite will drop his mask. Here, too, one could think of Hitler, Himmler, and others; after all, they left documents, speeches, and other things to humanity, and they committed acts which - thank God - have radically destroyed the legend that they were honorable men. Nothing of all that applies to Rudolf Brandt, if I may mention him at all in connection with the foregoing. He, who only had a chance to occupy himself for seconds or minutes with these matters and who, like Brandt, had neither the education nor the knowledge of a physician or a scientist in this particular field, certainly deserves different judgment than he, who by profession and by the authority invested in him, performs experiments and conducts research. In the mind of a medical scientist ideas and plans of the sort shown in this trial develop only slowly and are only rarely born spontaneously. The scientist has a definite idea or at least approximately recognizes the significance of the experiment. To employ this way of thinking in the case of Rudolf Brandt should lead, at least to a certain extent, to a mitigation of'punishment. If he had influence Himmler in one of the criminal plans or orders under consideration here, if he had discussed them with Himmler, as it might well become the duty of the so-called private secretary, then I would not lose many words in Dr. Brandt's defense. But the situation is different here. There is no doubt that Brandt was a National Socialist. Whatever one's attitude towards the question whether according to program and character of National Socialism cruelty and contempt of humanity was the essential part - which question should be answered in the affirmative, being the inevitable consequence of making national and racial values absolute and whether this was recognizable for anyone - which question should be answered in the negative - Hitler at any rate continuously spoke about peace and the uninitiated learned about his devilish tricks only when it was too late and the terror made any opposition hopeless.
I continue on page 24 This trial too, and particularly the IMT trial, has uncovered one of Hitler's biggest secrets which was the main cause of his extension of power, namely, his mastery of keeping secret even the most extensive and most gruesome crimes.
To be sure, the average German knew about the concentration camps and the complicity of the Secret Police. He also knew that the existence of the concentration camps and the system of treating the people in these camps was a still lower form of violence toward human beings than the militarism of the last years, particularly since Hitler's star began to descend and since he tried to free this instrument of any tradition. But details of the terror, of the executions, the liquidation of hundreds of thousands of people by gas, overwork, and other methods were known only to a few compared to the total of 80 million Germans; perhaps several thousand knew about it. No commandant of a concentration camp or his guards who committed such atrocities would have had any reason to publish such cruelties; for they knew that it would have earned for them the contempt of the overwhelming majority of the German people. Secrecy then has a psychological aspect: Atrocities are committed by the perpetrator only with a loudly or at least secretly throbbing conscience. The conscience is never silent. Whoever commits cruelties feels guilty and avoids the light of day.
It is my conviction that details which took place behind the walls and the electrically charged wires of the concentration camps, the many thousands of tragedies, were never known to the large masses of the people.
Despite the fact that Rudolf Brandt spent approximately 13 years in Himmler's anteroom, he had no more knowledge of the shame of the concentration camps than many another official, except that he knew, since 1942 that prisoners were being used for medical experiments.
According to his own plausible statement on the witness stand Brandt had never visited a concentration camp, none of the defendants or other doctors had ever reported to him a single detail - but the fact remains: Brandt lived in darkness as far as Himmler was concerned and he did see the salvation of his people and country in Hitler's program. Brandt had insufficient knowledge of general Christian concepts. He never came into personal or official contact with the Christian philosophy of life and therefore grew up with those ideals, which certainly, in their theoretical formulation had their good points, too, especially in so far as they propagated the renunciation of egotism as a way of life. Brandt did not realize that these ideals were based on annew paganism and for that reason alone were bound to lead to violence and slavery. Thus Brandt accepted Himmler's personality for many years, even during the war. This is natural, if one admires and respects a person, Brandt did no longer lead a family life, and if one looks closely, Brandt no longer thought or acted independently but it was Himmler rather who spoke and acted through him. This is true, I beg you to remember, not only for the medical experiments incriminated here but also for matters completely outside the bounds of criminal law, with which he had to occupy himself very largely every day. I will not go so far as to say that Brandt was completely incapable of forming his own opinions and degrade him to the level of an unthinking tool, but it is nevertheless true that Brandt, already at the beginning of the war, was no longer a person of whom one could have expected any intellectual resistance against Himmler. Brandt had lost his own standard, to be more exact, Himmler had become his standard more and more, so that he could not master any resistance even when Himmler dictated the wellknown letters, orders etc. or ordered Brandt to pass them on. Brandt's conscience, it is true, still rebelled as it did not agree with the experiments on humans which had been ordered; but we notice no reaction in the sense of an open or hidden resistance against Himmler's view in these matters.
Himmler gave the orders and the orders of this unbelievably powerful man completely overwhelmed a man still comparatively young who, by nature, was neither politically inclined nor a revolutionary, who was neither cruel nor ambitious, who saw his goal in life attained when he could put to use the only talent he possessed, namely, to write quickly.
I continue on page 28.
Some weeks ago sentence was pronounced against the former Field Marshal Milch. The Tribunal knows that it was not a sentence of death. I have studied this verdict and appreciate the conscientiousness with which the judges examined and considered all imaginable arguments of the defense. Is it permitted to establish a relation between the Milch trial and the doctor's trial, particularly with regard to the person of the defendant Rudolf Brandt? As far as each trial has its own peculiar history, any comparison is out of the question. As far as there is, however a similar train of thought in both trials, the defense counsel may establish such a relation. As a matter of fact, the judges in the Milch trial refrained from sentencing this man to death despite his extremely high position, despite the initiative and strong energy he applied in executing his plans, despite his numerous, incontrovertible remarks. This encourages me to intervene once more in Brandt's behalf and to ask the Tribunal for a mild sentence. In comparing the two personalities and series of acts nearly everything turns out in favor of my client, and I do not fail to recognize that Himmler's orders resulted in shameful excesses against the life and liberty of innocent people. Yet I do not hesitate to say that in the case of Milch a guilt can be expiated by a relative punishment, the punishment for Rudolf Brandt should not open the gate to eternity.
I conclude this discussion with a question which also played a part in the cross examination: Will Rudolf Brandt's good character description as show by the affidavits of the defense become dimmed or even influenced in an entirely unfavorable way by the sworn affidavits which he gave to the prosecution, but which are wrong in essential points?
I have to answer this question in the negative. The entire controversy about Brandt's own affidavits shows that this defendant lacked intelligence and will power and that his poor state of health evidently aggravated both even more. Brandt signed affidavits for the prosecution the contents of which were objectively contadictory to the truth and which he could have corrected on the witness stand after calm reflection and examination of the facts. The fact that Brandt was prepared at that time to sign affidavits for the prosecution which were in part objectively incorrect, and that he evidently did so without raising any serious objections, should give us pause for a moment, when the Tribunal examines the importance of his signatures, which he gave just as quickly in his "personal Referat", perhaps even much more quickly. I emphasize here that I have no intentions of reproaching the prosecution. It only seems relevant to me to show in this example which came up hero during the trial how quickly a signature can be given, even though the person giving the signature has not fully realized the importance of the statement signed by him at the time he signed it. Brandt expressed his opinion, partly even reported facts about some of his co-defendants which lack sufficient foundation without there being any reason for enmity, aversion or any other selfish motives towards his co-defendants. Brandt simply signed these affidavits under the erroneous assumption that his signatures confirmed things that were correct. In order to judge this peculiar situation it should be noted that it is not the statements which turn out to be untrue that are to be considered as a lie or, if made under oath, as perjury, but only the statements which are consciously false. In the case in question no other reproach could be made against Brandt except that he had made a,n objectively incorrect statement by mistake. I do not consider this a symptom of unscrupulousness of character.
I continue - page 43:
Rudolf Brandt does not consider himself innocent. During his interrogation in the witness box he answered the question whether or not he considered himself guilty:
"I am honest and consistent enough not just to deny all guilt. If a more or less important stenographer becomes guilty because he takes down dictation and passes on such dictation to subordinate stenographers, or composes letters on orders from Himmler, then in this sense I am not without guilt... I realize that it is almost impossible for Your Honors to place yourselves in the position in which I found myself then. Your Honors could not do so even with the best of intentions since those conditions were unique and cannot be re-constructed; nevertheless; in asking for a just verdict, I would again and again refer to the three aspects because I myself am deeply impressed by the extremely weighty evidence brought against me. Today, in calm retrospect, viewed from the green table, so to speak... I would be happy not to have signed these letters because they more contrary to my sentiment and convictions. I have, to date, not had to change this conviction."
(Page 4921 of the English transcript)
If, after all, Brandt's guilt remains, it is nevertheless quite evident that his person comprises both the good and the evil so that I could not but plead for a lenient sentence. The demoniacal strength inherent in a giant organism makes a mock of a man like Brandt who is meek and weak by nature, barely good enough to be its passive tool, an automaton, yes, though hardly still a man.
Only few are better able to judge the character of a defendant than his defense counsel because no one else can have a greater interest to probe below his surface. After many careful observations, I arrive at the conclusion that this man's spiritual constitution entirely conforms to the testimony deposed by the defense witnesses regarding Brandt's character and gentleness. He suffers the deepest remorse and is horrified at the human torments which emerge from the documents and confront him. He may well be the only man accused here who, in the witness box, made statements which reflect deep shame at his own actions and manifest genuine repentence.
By passing on orders and documents, etc. he somehow became a link in that fateful chain of events which frequently ended with the death of persons, and although he could not have thought of these himself, Brandt is ashamed of his actions. Should not the Tribunal also take into consideration Brandt's genuine regeneration when the question of the penalty arises?
Assuming it is proved what I have said regarding Brandt's personality, his rank, his position, his sphere and pressure of work, orders, etc., I consider it should be possible to see this man in a different light from that offered by the prosecution.
When a world is upside-down, the guiding spirits who feel responsible for regeneration must make justice the basis for the community. Then will follow peace and prosperity for which we Germans yearn after long years of barbarism. I could understand it if it was said that a tottering justice demands for its sake a harsh sentence. Perhaps as a warning to those who may be disposed to trample again upon these mainstays of civilization.
Greater wisdom, however, abides on the side of moderation; after all, hardly any nation in this century can be absolved of all moral guilt. Permit me, therefore, that I conclude with three moment us words, guides to a rebirth of the world: Truth, justice, and clemency.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is again in session.
The Tribunal is informed that the translators have the transcript of the arguments on behalf of the defendant Sievers. The counsel for the defendant Sievers may now proceed with his arguments.
DR. WEISGERBER: (Counsel for the defendant Sievers) Mr. President, I do not know whether the Tribunal has a written translation of my plea.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation is not available to the Tribunal, but the interpreters have the translation and the Tribunal will listen to the interpreters. Counsel may proceed.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I have received the requisite number of translations and will be glad to give them to the Tribunal.
Mr. President, Your Honors .....
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, if you will speak in a little lower tone of voice, it will be easier for the Tribunal to hear the interpreters.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, Your Honors, "Sievers - a key figure," a special case, "Sievers and his collaborators in the Ahnenerbe Society were completely possessed of the vicious and horrible doctrines of Nazism." -- These are some of the slogan-like epithets that the prosecution used when presenting the case SIEVERS. It is my duty to discuss the case of SIEVERS with dispassionate objectivity in order to offer you, Your Honor, the basis for a judgment doing justice to all the details of this case.
SIEVERS' life history and his professional career are being discribed in my closing brief, in which I quoted a number of affidavits testifying to his good character and his high ethical attitude. SIEVERS met Dr. HIELSCHER for the first time in 1929 who with extraordinary insight recognized at a very early stage the dangers of National Socialism made SIEVERS an entirely realible, decided and faithful follower of Dr. HIELSCHER. On his instigation SIEVERS became a member of the NSDAP. On his instigation SIEVERS in 1935 resigned from his professional career in order to fill the position of a secretary general in the Ahnenerbe society.
He did this in order to make possible the execution of the tasks against National Socialism that Dr. HIELSCHER had assigned him. Alone the fact that Sievers renounced a safe position and took over a duty that since the beginning was connected with the greatest danger for his personal safety must be appreciated as an act of greatest self-denial.
I only want to deal very briefly with Sievers' position in the Ahnenerbe Society that I have described in detail in my Closing Brief. I consider this necessary because the Prosecution has described Sievers as the authority in the Ahnenerbe and the "director" of the Institute for Military Scientific Research. The erroneousness of this concept is of decisive importance. The President and therefore the highest authority for both institutes was Himmler. Under him was the curator and later Amtschef, Prof. Dr. Wuest, Rector of the Munich university, who was in charge of the scientific direction. If there was such a thing as a supervisory right and a supervisory responsibility for the scientific departments, it was exclusively Dr. Wuest's duty and not Sievers'. Sievers was the "Reich business manager" who was exclusively in charge of administrative duties, which, however, were limited to special fields. When in 1942 on Himmler's order Rascher's and Hirth's institutes were unfortunately annexed.
When in 1942, on HIMMLER's order, the "Ahnenerbe" -- until then exclusively culturally and humanistically oriented -- was unfortunately joined to the institutes of Dr. RASCHER and Dr. HIRT and later coordinated with them in the Institute for military scientific research, SIEVERS tasks remained exactly the same as before. They are designated exactly in HIMMLER's written order of 7 July 1942, and of 13 December 1942. Ordering research projects, giving orders, supervision and execution of research work, allocation of prisoners for experiments on human beings, all these did not belong to SIEVERS work. If yet there are papers in the documentary material of the Prosecution that deal with the allocation of prisoners, then these papers -- if at all -- were only forwarded to the competent authority by SIEVERS.
On all activities of an administrative nature, reports were made to the Curator and Amtschef. Insofar as SIEVERS, considering the geographical distance between Berlin and Munich, signed the correspondence, the copy was subsequently countersigned by Dr. WUEST, with those few sentences I hope to have clarified the competencies and responsibilities within the "Ahnenerbe" and the Institute for military scientific research. When Professor Dr. GEBHARDT characterized responsibility within the "Ahnenerbe" with the remark that SIEVERS did not belong there at all, his judgment was absolutely correct.
I shall now turn to comment briefly on the individual counts of the indictment. At first I shall deal with those counts, in which SIEVERS' participation does not exist, because the characteristics of objective factual evidence are missing.
1. SIEVERS is being connected with the malaria experiments of Dr. SCHILLING. No witness of the Prosecution could certify this. The documents submitted do not show anything except that SIEVERS wanted to release Dr. PLOETNER from his activities with Dr. SCHILLING, which was expressly requested by the former. The entermological station in Dachau, which belonged to the Institute for military scientific research had not the least thing to do with either Dr. SCHILLING's malaria research or with experiments on human beings, as witness Dr. MAY testified. For the rest, I refer to the state in my Closing Brief, pages 49-51.
2. With the seawater experiments that were carried out in the Concentration Camp Dachau by order of the Luftwaffe, SIEVERS had also nothing at all to do. On the basis of an agreement between the Luftwaffe and the Reichsfuehrung -SS, SIEVERS, in the course of an coincidental meeting on 20 July 1944, in a conference of at most 20 minutes' duration discussed with Professor Dr. BEIGLEBOECK, who had been completely unknown to him until then, the cession of rooms in the entomological institute, which, moreover, was located outside the camp.
SIEVERS had no knowledge of either the subject of the scheduled experiments, or of their further course. After 20 August 1944, SIEVERS was not in Dachau any more. (See Closing Brief, pages 63-66).
3. As proof of SIEVERS' participations in the experiments with epidemic jaundice, the Prosecution refers to an entry in the journal of the "Ahnenerbe" dated 3 March 1944. Generalarzt Dr. SCHREIBER is requesting SIEVERS to arrange a conference with HIMMLER about hepatitis. Until that day, SIEVERS did not know what hepatitis was, neither did he know later where hepatitis experiments were carried on, and what sort of experiments they were. (See Closing Brief, pages 67-69).
4. The typhus experiments carried on in the Concentration Camp Natzweiler were ordered via GOERING as president of the Reich Research Council and via the Inspector of Sanitation of the Luftwaffe. SIEVERS did not come into contact at all with the experiments or the director of the experiments, Professor Dr. HAAGEN. Until 1946 he did not even know Dr. HAGEN. Also, at the time the experiments were conducted, SIEVERS was never at the Concentration Camp Natzweiler. Twice there were written requests for a certain number of persons for typhus immunizations forwarded to SIEVERS who was definitely not the competent authority for this. The express assurance was given that these immunizations were not dangerous. How should SIEVERS have obtained the knowledge that this was possibly a question of illegal experiments, which was emphatically denied by Dr. HAGEN, the director of the experiments? That the immunized persons were quartered the the so-called "Ahnenerbe" -- barracks in the Concentration Camp Natzweiler is no proof of the fact that the "Ahnenerbe" had anything at all to do with the happenings there. The building block opposite this barracks was still called "Chevauzleger" barracks by the natives when in Germany for a long time already the "Chevauzleger" - as the light cavallery of the old Bavarian army was called -- were non-existent.
Therefore, here too there was no connection of Sievers with the typhus experiments (See Closing Brief, pages 69-75).
5. If the Prosecution maintained that SIEVERS was connected with Biological Warfare, the so-called "N-Stoff" (N-Material"), and with certain gas experiments, it still remains for the Prosecution to present proof of the fact that it was here a question of any sort of crime.
The assertions of the Prosecution have been completely refuted. (See Closing Brief, pages 94-96).
6.- Also, the indictment Sievers' for participation in experiments are the congulation of blood has no foundation whatsoever I Sievers was merely to initiate the manufacture of "Polygal" which was developed by Dr. Rascher together with the Dachau-prisoner Feix. Sievers did not participate in any form and at any time in the previous development of this preparation. If Mr. Rascher is supposed to have committed criminal offenses in connection with the development of Polygal, this fact was completely unknown to Sievers. (Closing Brief, pages 85-94).
7. Sievers did not personally participate in the Lost (gas) - experiments carried out by Professor Dr. Hirt, in Natzweiler. When the experiments were already concluded, and the persons experimented on were still lying in the experimental station for observation. He was in Natzweiler once for a short stay. There he talked to the persons on whom the experiments wore conducted who, upon his questioning, answered that they had volunteered. This fact was verified by witness Nales. Regarding the question oi volunteering of the persons experimented on, I refer to the statement of facts in my Closing Brief (pages 23-26a). The outward picture that Sievers obtained from the people experimented on, and the declaration that they had volunteered, could not possibly create in Sievers the conviction that medical men, whose supervision was not in the least in Sievers' resort, would conduct illegal experiments. (Closing Brief, pages 52-62).
8. Sievers had knowledge of the low-pressure and low-temperature experiments that were carried out in the concentration Camp Dachau by Rascher together with Dr. Romberg or Professors Holzloebner and Dr. Tinks. That these were criminal experiments cannot be assumed in view of the evidence. In use case had Sievers positive knowledge of any criminal activities, should they actually have taken place. In the course of the experiments which Sievers observed wholly or in part, all persons on whom these experiments were conducted stated that they had volunteered.
What reason should Sievers have not to believe those assurances? What reason should Sievers have not to believe the frequently repeated declarations given to him by Himmler and other participants, that the people experimented on were volunteers? What reason should Sievers have to assume that the doctors assigned to carry out these experiment would disregard the principles of medical professional ethics?
There is nothing at all which lead one to assume that Sievers know about the experiments carried on by Rascher on his own. On the contrary, from the affidavit of Dr. Fritz Friedrich Rascher we know with how much secrecy Rascher sorrounded his non-controlled experiments. We also know from the testimony of Dr. Panzengruber (See Exh. 45, see Doc. Book II, page 10), how little trust Rascher put in Sievers; to impart to him joint knowledge of a secret was out of the question in view of Rascher's character. I have thouroughly demonstrate in my Closing Brief how to evaluate Siever's activities in connection with Rascher's planned habilitation as a lecturer and his transfer into the Waffen-SS. I come to the conclusion that Sievers cannot be accused of criminal participation in the low-pressure and low-temperature experiments. The prerequisite for that would have to be knowing or being bound to know bf criminal experiments connected with the animus auctoris vel adjutoris. None of these characteristic facts are present.
9. If I now touch on the Jewish skeletion collection, it is clean to me that prima vista Sievers' activities can be thought to constitute considerable material for indictment. But is this really so? Did the idea of making a Jewish skeletion collection originate with Sievers? No! The plan was discussed by Himmler and Hirt, and Himmler then ordered it executed. When, at Easter 1942, Sievers tried to influence Himmler to desist from connecting Dr. Hirt's department with the "Ahnenerbe", Himmler pointed out the commissar order ("Kommiss arbefehl") which had been unknown to Sievers until then. To this commissar order Himmler added the explan ation that Sovyet commissars had committed inhuman cruelties on German soldiers and civilians innumerable cases.
Sievers had never been personally acquainted with war conditions in the East; can he be expected to know that an order given by the Chief of State and Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht was illegal? To answer this question in the affirmative would mean to charge everyone who held a subordinate position with a responsibility which he simply cannot be expected carry, were it only for his lack of knowledge in the fields of international and national law.
The persons designated for the skeletion collections were selected in the Concentration Camp Auschwitz by Dr. Beyer on orders from Dr. Hirt. To interfere with this part of the execution of Himmler's order was neither in the power of defendant Sievers, nor did he have on opportunity to do so. Nor was he ever in Auschwitz, and did not exercise influence of any sort on the operation Dr. Hirt or Dr. Beyer, Now, Sievers signed the letter drafted by Dr. Beyer, dated 21 June 1943 and addressed to the Main Reich Security Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) which contained material on the transfer from Auschwitz to Natzweiler of persons who had been selected for liquidation. (Pro.Exh. 181). Is there to be sure in this letter any supporting, furthering or favoring of the skeletion collection planned by Himmler and Dr. Hirt? In my Closing Brief I have thoroughly outlined my opinion on this question. The transfer from Auschwitz to Natzweiler of the people selected by Dr. Beyer had a long time ago been decided upon in the plan Himmler-Dr. Hirt. Gluecks, who was the competent authorities for all matters concerning concentration camp, and the Union Reich Security Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt) had already received their orders from Himmler a long time ago. Would there have been no skeletion collection if Sievers had not written the letter of 21 June 1943? Only he who is completely ignorants of the order machine of the NS-regime will first it difficult to give reasons for the decided "NO" that must answer the question posed above.
In September 1944, Dr. Hirt asked the "Ahnenerbe", what should be done with the skeletion collection. Sievers forwards this inquiry to the next authority. The decision is made by SS-Standartenfuehrer Bannert of the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Sievers forwards these directives. Thus, here too there is no independent action on Sievers' part, quite analogous to all other cases. Even already on the basis of their occurrence, which, in itself, is completely negligible, it can be noted how inclusive the prosecution's attitude is that Sievers was a person of authority. Evaluating the evidence and the legal questions arising therefrom purely objectively I come to the conclusion that in the matter of the skelton collection Sievers cannot be regarded either as principal or as accessory or as abettor.
10. Regarding the question of conspiracy I refer to defense counsel's statements in the plenary session of 9 July 47. I refer to these statements on this subject in my closing brief.
11. Sievers' membership in the SS, an organization that has been declared criminal, is a fact, objectively speaking. But for subjective reasons, which I shall now discuss, he cannot be condemned for this.
May it please the Tribunal, Let me remind you of the part of my presentation which dealt with Sievers' participation in the resistance movement against the Nazi regime.
When the defendant Sievers claims to have been active in a resistance movement, he is not thus attempting to achieve a mitigation of the sentence that may be passed against him. Rather, I am of the view that this activity must inevitably lead to his acquittal, even if the Tribunal, contrary to all expectations, should be inclined to the opinion that Sievers took part in the incriminating experiments.
I first intend to state my attitude toward a number of legal questions which are recognized in the penal codes of all civilized peoples and at all times.
The Tribunals task here is not simply to apply a specific paragraph, but to extract from general juridical and legal principles the rule which reveals and creates new law for newly arisen cases.
It is a matter of course that in first order I am appearing in behalf of my client, but you, Your Honors, are not passing judgment in your verdict merely on this defendant. Your verdict has a much more inclusive, universal, and I should like to say, world embracing significance, over and beyond this individual case. For this is the first time that a decision has to be passed regarding the actions of a member of a resistance movement in a trial of the significance of this one.
And therefore your verdict is fundamental and establishes a precedent for the present, for many many other defendants who stand and will stand before you and other tribunals. The implications of your decision extends also into the future for thousands and tens of thousands of human beings who sometime or other may find themselves in the position of combatting some criminal governmental system with means similar to those used by Sievers. There are still autocracies and totali tarian dictatorships on this earth, and one needs but little political perspicacity to see that future dictatorships can bring about further international imbroglios and wars of the most terrible sort. And in the future also courageous men will again and again be needed who for the welfare of their people of their nation and of humanity will hurl themselves against this danger. And for these fighters and groups of fighters your verdict will be a guide. You are passing judgment in advance on the future possibilities and radius of action of coming resistance movements against criminal governments. In your judgment you can apply a brake to such movements; but you can also afford them the certainty that is necessary for their hazardous undertaking and for their success. How and where would you in the future again find such helpers, if they had to reckon not only with the immediate danger but with the additional danger of being called to account by the very people for whom they had striven.
And therefore, Your Honors, in your judgment in the case against Sievers you are taking upon yourselves a responsibility before the entire world and for all time, a responsibility with which a tribunal only seldom finds itself confronted. But on the other hand you can also say with pride that in your judgment you have done the world, in its struggle for peace and justice an incalculable service.
And therefore also, the reasons for your judgment against Sievers are so prodigiously important, much more important, in the grand movement of world history through time, than the petty case against Sievers can ever be. And I myself am obliged to deal with these legal problems at somewhat greater length.
Of course the member of a political resistance movement can only then refer to his resistance, if this resistance itself is lawful. This will not always be the case; for political crimes and similar deeds committed for political motives are and remain crimes. Whoever removes his political adversary for the sole reason of taking his position himself or opening the way to his partisans acts unlawfully and is punishable. This changes, however, in the moment when it is not merely a political dispute that is being settled by murder, when it is rather a tyrant, whose reigh is entered with bloody letters in the annuals of mankind, who has finally been prostated. Here a recognized reason justifying his deed will come to the perpetrator's aid. And this is self-defense.
According to Article 53 of the German Criminal Code an act compelled by self-defense is not punishable. Self-defense is such a defense as is required to repel an imminent unlawful attack on oneself or another.
But those principles are not only German legal regulations. They are common legal heritage of all peoples and all times. They are in line with human sentiment to a large degree and are called "the great law of defense."
They are to be found already in Roman law as: vim vi repellere licet and have been taken over enthusiastically - as stated by Wharton in Par. 613 - by English Common law and by American law. Every individual is authorized toward off injustice from himself or from another person with all means at his disposal. The struggle against a criminal government, menacing world peace, preparing aggressive wars and about to plunge the world into immeasurable misery, useless and neddlessly, out of lust of power and arrogance, must be regarded in the same light, the struggle and resistance against such a government and leadership is lawful and permissible, regardless of the means with which it is being conducted. Indeed since the end of the war more and more people have taken the attitude that such a struggle is not only lawful and permissible but the duty of every individual. Is it not a fact that the collective guilt of the whole German nation is that it had viewed the activities of the Nazi regime without doing anything about it, at the most with their secretly clenched in their pockets?